Date: 18 May 2004

Speaker: Kimmo Kiljunen, Member of the Finnish Parliament, former Member of the Convention on the Future of Europe

 
Predicting that 95% of the draft Constitution that emerged from the IGC in December would finally be adopted at the European Council meeting in June, Kimmo Kiljunen pronounced the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe, of which he was a member, a success in making the EU more democratic, transparent and efficient. The Finnish MP was at CEPS to launch his new and highly engaging book, The European Constitution in the Making , before a CEPS audience on May 18th, relating his experiences as a ‘conventionnel’ and explaining the proposals of the Convention and how and why they came to be agreed.
 
Kiljunen characterised the draft EU Constitution as a delicate and carefully crafted compromise reached by the Convention to accommodate the minimum requirements of France, Germany and the UK, each of which was driven by radically different and often conflicting political agendas vis-à-vis the European project. The smaller countries simply had to give way. While acknowledging that the end result may actually represent the lowest common denominator of what was possible, Kiljunen nevertheless lauded the draft Constitution as a great achievement attributable in large part to the perseverance, shrewdness and negotiating skill of the Convention’s Chairman, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing
 
Kiljunen described the calls being made for referenda in several member states to approve the draft Constitution as an “unholy alliance” forged between on the one hand those who believe that only by means of a public referendum can the “will of the people” be expressed and the eurosceptics, on the other, who wish to preserve a strong element of national sovereignty in the EU decision-making process and would happily see a negative result.
 
The consequences of rejection in a national referendum depend heavily on the size of the country going to the polls. If the public of a small country votes “no” to the EU Constitution, it will not kill the process, but will simply determine that country’s own fate within the EU. If a large country votes “no”, however, notably France or Germany, it will have determined the fate of the Constitution. Nevertheless, Kiljunen exempts the UK from this dictum, believing that the Constitution will not necessarily be scuppered if it receives a no-vote there, citing other central elements of the European project, such as the Schengen Agreement and EMU, from which the UK has distanced itself, without inflicting too grave an effect.